Project Chicken Soup

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954232540
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2016
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3108365402
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Judaism
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$139,362
Expenses
$114,783
Assets
$27,761

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT JOHNSON (Secretary)
  • JASON HOFFMAN (Treasurer)
  • ALICIA GARCIA (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To prepare and deliver free, nutritious, kosher meals to people in the greater Los Angeles area living with HIV/AIDS, cancer and other serious illnesses. These services are provided with love and compassion to all persons regardless of faith or religious belief.

What it reported doing in 2016

Project chicken soup delivered nutritious, freshly prepared meals to 125 clients throughout los angeles county. Each client received 20 meals every month. In addition to the freshly prepared food, clients sometimes received an additional bag with non-perishable packaged food and toiletries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and the available information about grant readiness automatic revocation leaves an important question unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 85.5%; rating input score 86

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.6%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 85.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $98K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.